WAVERLY, Ohio — Pike County Sheriff's deputies escorted Derek Myers, the editor of the Scioto Valley Guardian, out of court on Friday after he objected to a witness opting-out of having her testimony broadcast.
Myers incorrectly cited an Ohio Fourth District Court of Appeals ruling, which only allowed the media to broadcast and photograph all exhibits in the the trial of George Wagner IV, whose trial in the Rhoden family killings entered its seventh week on Monday.
The ruling did not change Pike County Common Pleas Court Judge Randy Deering's earlier media order that allows for any witness to "opt-out" of being broadcast live, recorded or photographed during the trial. The Ohio Rules of Superintendence (Rule 12) states that any courtroom witness can chose not to be photographed or have their testimony broadcast. During court, Deering has repeatedly made clear he will follow that rule and not waiver.
Deering's media order requires media to object in writing.
Myers in not a lawyer and not part of the trial, as the judge states here:
In general terms, if the media objects to a judge's ruling or interpretation of the law, a lawyer representing a media outlet will file a motion citing the legal reasons they object and usually a hearing on that matter is scheduled.
However, according to your textbook (page 141). The below relates specifically to a judge closing her/his courtroom and may not directly apply. As is the case with most reporting: It is often a balance of common sense and law related to public access to public proceedings and public records.
In this case, the media filed a writ of prohibition with the Ohio Court of Appeals asking it to block Deering's July 1 media order, which I posted about here. The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the media, but only as it related to the broadcasting/photographing of exhibits.
"Therefore, we GRANT the Relator's petition for a writ of prohibition to the extent Judge Deering s prohibited rom imposing restrictions on the recording of exhibits during open courtroom proceedings without affording all parties an opportunity to be heard, making the appropriate findings, and entering the decision on the record."
You can read the full ruling here.
On Monday, Deering told jurors to disregard Myers' outburst after Wagner's lawyers filed a motion asking Deering to do so.
Myers was allowed in the courtroom later Monday and Deering, from the bench, admonished him for his actions Friday and told him if he does so again, he will be barred from the trial and sanctioned.
My take-aways:
This is a case of a journalist becoming a part of the story. As journalists, we are observers and should strive to never become the story. As I mentioned in class a couple weeks back: Journalism is not about us. It is about the seeking of facts, documenting history, holding the government accountable and the telling of people's stories. We should strive to stay out of the limelight.
In this case, Myers could have called a media lawyer to seek counsel. He also should have read the judge's media order about how objections are to be handled. And, most importantly, he should have known exactly what the court of appeals ruling said.
Questions for students:
What are your thoughts or questions after watching the video clip?
Read the Court of Appeals full ruling here and write a summary lede with a second paragraph and third paragraph, that should be a background paragraph.
After this happened, would you write a story? And if so, who would you interview or try to interview (list a minimum of three sources).